IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.5556/Del/2012 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Phool Singh, Vs. ITO, Ward 39(4), 147, Harsukh Apartment, New Delhi Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075 GIR / PAN :AATPS3016K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ashish Chadha, Adv. Respondent by : Shri F R Meena, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 21.09.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 23.08.2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A) - XVIII, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2009-10 on following grounds of appeal: 1) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXVIII, New Delhi has erred in deciding appellate proceedings by confirming additions made by learned Assessing Officer without providing reasonable opportunity to appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on additions made by Learned Assessing. 2) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXVIII, New Delhi has erred in confirming addition sum of Rs.54,58,406.00 on account of 2 I.T.A.No.5556/Del/2012 loss claimed on trading of mutual funds being disallowed by Learned Assessing Officer considering same to be short term capital loss instead of business loss. 3) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXVIII, New Delhi has erred in confirming addition sum of Rs.2,71,571.00 on account of loss claimed on trading of shares being disallowed by Learned Assessing Officer considering same to be loss from speculative activity instead of business loss. 4) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming arbitrary addition of Rs.l,00,000.00 being part of site expenses claimed by appellant without considering explanations submitted by appellant. 5) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming arbitrary addition of Rs.1,00,000.00 out of Vehicle and conveyance expenses claimed by appellant without appreciating fact that entire expenses has been incurred for in nature of and for purpose of appellants business. 6) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming arbitrary addition of Rs.50,000.00 out of Telephone expenses claimed by appellant without appreciating fact that entire expenses has been incurred for in nature of and for purpose of appellants business . 7. ) That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming arbitrary addition of Rs.10,000.00 out of Business Promotion Telephone expenses claimed by appellant without appreciating fact that entire expenses has 3 I.T.A.No.5556/Del/2012 been incurred for in nature of and for purpose of appellants business .. 8) That it is accordingly -prayed that additions confirmed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted. 2. Brief facts of case are as under: 2.1 assessee is in business of civil foundation for installation of telecommunication towers. During year under consideration, assessee had derived income from contractual activities and sales/purchase of shares and mutual funds apart from income from other sources and house property. assessee filed its return on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,50,03,792/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of Act and case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assessee. During assessment proceedings, Ld. A.O. observed that assessee had claimed loss on sale of shares and mutual funds, amounting to Rs.71,92,177/-, break of which is as under: Loss on sale of mutual funds Rs.54,58,406/- Loss on account of normal share trading Rs.15,00,911/- Loss claimed on account of trading in derivatives Rs.2,32,860/- 2.2 Ld. A.O. held that loss claimed by assesse on sale of mutual funds amounting to Rs.54,58,406/- has to 4 I.T.A.No.5556/Del/2012 be treated as capital gain loss. Ld. A.O. further made disallowances which are as under: Site expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Vehicle & Conveyance Expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Telephone expenses Rs.50,000/- Business Promotion expenses Rs.10,000/- 2.3 Aggrieved by order of Ld. A.O., assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 2.4 Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order as under: During appeal proceedings appellant sought adjournment against notice dated 24.04.2012, case was adjourned several times on 07.05.2012, 10.05.2012. However none appeared. Another notice was issued on 17.07.2012, appellant sought adjournment on 25.07.2012. Case was adjourned for haring on 03.08.2012. None appeared nor filed any written submission. I do not find any reason to interfere with order passed by Assessing Officer. order of Assessing Officer is therefore sustained. Appeal on this ground is dismissed. 2.5 Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 3. Ld. A.R. submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed disallowance without giving any findings on merits. He thus requested impugned order to be set aside back to file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding issue on merits. 4. Ld. D.R. does not object to submissions made by Ld. A.R. 5 I.T.A.No.5556/Del/2012 5. We have perused records placed before us and impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A). From conclusion drawn by Ld. CIT(A) reproduced hereinabove, we find that he has just confirmed action of Ld. A.O. without properly discussing case on merits. We accordingly, set aside impugned order to Ld. CIT(A)with directions to dispose of appeal of assessee afresh after allowing proper opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that while redeciding appeal. Ld. CIT(A) should pass speaking order keeping in mind mandate of provisions of Section 250(6) of Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 21st Sep., 2016. Sd./- Sd./- (N. K. SAINI) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 21.09.2016 Sp. Copy forwarded to:- 1. appellant 2. respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A)-, New Delhi. 5. DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. True copy. By Order (ITAT, New Delhi) 6 I.T.A.No.5556/Del/2012 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by 4 AM/AM Second Member Approved Draft comes to 21/9/16 5 Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement 21/9 Sr. PS/PS 7 File sent to Bench Clerk 21/9 Sr. PS/PS Date on which file goes to 8 Head Clerk 9 Date on which file goes to A.R. 10 Date of Dispatch of order Phool Singh v. ITO, Ward 39(4), New Delhi